With the discrimination of human beings, annihilation of masses, and carnage of innocents, history shows how vicious human actions can be. What separates people from animals that kill others just the same? Human being’s ability to use reasoning to validate the cruel actions they take upon others. People often use logic and premises to warrant the actions they wish to take. It is convenient for them to have this ability to allow them to do as they please as long as they can support it with reasoning, not only for others to understand, but also to make themselves feel less guilty of their desires. These inclinations, after all, often go against their very principles and moral standings; therefore, rationale behind the actions they take for these …show more content…
In the late 18th century, southern slaveholders relied on the institution of slavery for their economic prosperity. Despite the fact that slavery went against religious principles, along with the principles of democracy, the slaveholders had to find a way to justify it because of their reliance on it. They justified slavery through racism by explaining that it does not go against the principles of democracy because Africans are an inferior people who are "suited" for slavery. The slaveholders referred to it as a "positive good" because of the class distinctions it gives and the guarantee of equality for whites it provides since they will not have to do the work slaves do. Another part of their reasoning was that if men in the north use "wage slavery", the exploitation of workers in the factories, then southerners should be free to keep the normal slavery. Many people were against the institution of slavery because it went against the democratic principles and religious values America was created upon, however, when they realized how much wealthier and more influential they could be with slaves working their crop, they used convenient reasoning to justify their precious institution. They had an inclination towards slavery despite their principles, and so, they used reasoning as a justification. The men who used …show more content…
In 1945, two deadly atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing many innocent people in an instant. The United States decided to drop their first bomb on Hiroshima, and when Japan did not surrender, they decided to drop another on Nagasaki. Japanese forces were then forced to step out of the war after the mass destruction caused by the bombs. Many died instantly, while others died from the radiation days following the initial attack. These bombings went against the morals of many, yet, America justified these attacks. According to President Harry Truman, the reason the United States dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was because of Pearl Harbor, an attack on a US naval base that killed 2400 people. President Harry Truman then justified the second bomb dropped on Nagasaki by saying that since Japan did not surrender, the United States was forced to take action. However, in a war that the government decided to remain isolated from, and then decided to attack because of a provocation, it is strange that Japan-who killed 2400 soldiers- was forced to pay the price with over 129,000 deaths of innocent civilians. Rather than giving men or supplies to the Allies, the United States decided to decimate a large portion of Japan 's population. It was simply convenient for the United States to use this reasoning
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
In the story “Michihiko Hachiya from Hiroshima Diary,” the author talks about how back in 1945 on August 6 there had been an atomic bomb that had dropped in Hiroshima Japan. America did end up getting justified due the massive attack of the bombing in Pearl harbor, and Hawaii. This had occurred a couple years back prior to the bombing in Hiroshima. Then the war had an end to it due to the fact that many people were lucky enough to get saved and live their life. The good about this was that men,women, and their children didn't have to worry about anything because they weren't going to get killed.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened during World War II. World War II was coming to a close and the Japanese were holding on to what little land they had claimed. Meanwhile allowing their people and the people in the surrounding countries to starve. This is because the Japanese would not have surrendered without the bombings, there would have been more Asian civilian casualties had the war gone on, and finally that the Invasion of Japan would have resulted in more American casualties. The evidence clearly shown through historical documents will justify that the bombings were catastrophic and caused many civilian casualties, but was necessary to end World War II.
1. The basic premise of Pinckney’s argument is founded on the idea that slavery, as a societal instrument, naturally exists and has existed throughout recorded history of civilization and religion, therefore discrediting the notions of its immorality by several northern legislators. Additionally, Pinckney supports slavery as an economic tool as well as a political tool, both with the intention of maintaining the union. Representative Pinckney supports slavery through the theocratic appeal of the bible to the representatives of congress by stating, “Now, sir, … is there a single line in the Old of New Testament either censuring or forbidding it? I answer without hesitation.”
The decisions made to drop the A-bomb in Japan by president Harry Truman are often criticized, but to judge an opinion based off of the standards of this day and era is meaningless. Although everyone has different propositions, views, or opinions the decision that Truman made to protect his country seems like the only justifiable solution of ending this war. President Harry Truman had to make one of the most difficult decisions ever known to mankind. Many critics recognize the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as merciless acts to express the United States mobilization of their military superiority. Therefore, in question of this laborious outcome, how did the United States and Truman come to their commitment of terrorizing millions of lives
In the nineteenth century, white Americans relied on free labor from black slaves heavily. The supporters of slavery used economic, legal, and religious arguments to defend slavery. Many people began to question whether slavery truly was moral or not. Abolitionists had their opinions on slavery, but southerners used economic, legal, and religious arguments to justify themselves as the correct ones. These apologists were including information about economic prosperity, the property rights, and Christianity religion.
Slavery was one of the most important economic aspects of life of the Old South. It depended on the perpetuation of slavery. When their system of life was being questioned, the author, who is claimed to be anonymous, defended their ways as morally correct as mandated by God. The essay appeared in De Bow’s Review in September of 1850. The author of the essay was anonymous because he “apparently did not want to be associated with such a straight forward summary of the pro slavery argument” (Finkleman, 108).
The first bombing in Hiroshima failed to elicit immediate Japanese surrender even though it caused the most damage and took more lives than Fat Man (“Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki” 1). During Truman’s speech of informing the American public that the US had dropped an entirely new type of bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, he warned that if Japan still refused to surrender unconditionally they would continue to attack and leave them with equally devastating results (“Potsdam and the Final Decision to use the Bomb” 6). Japan still refused to surrender and the second bombing in Nagasaki occured. This bombing resulted finally in the unconditional surrender that Truman anticipated (“Atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki” 1). He felt that this surrender would only have result from the atomic bombs.
It has been 71 years since the Second World War and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Americans. With recent visit on May to Hiroshima by the US President Obama and on December to Pearl Harbour by Japanese PM Abe, the wound between the two countries are healing. However there has not been a clear apology being said by neither of the leaders during their visits. Having the atomic bomb killed or wounded at least 150,000 in Hiroshima and 75,000 in Nagasaki (http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html) , the US president’s responsibility of an apology towards the victims is debated. Ethically, and politically, there are reasons to why the US should, and should not apologise for the decision made in 1945.
In modern society, many people are still debating whether of not the droppings of the atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII were justified. Some believe that the bombings were fair, while others believe it was morally wrong and inhumane. This thus leads me to discuss the controversial topic and explain why the bombings were not justified. The Bombings Were Inhumane
Japan sacrificed tens of thousands of civilian lives just to prove supreme power between the soviet union and the United States. In conclusion, In my opinion, if I were to do something about the bombing of Japan is that if I were Japan I would have surrendered because as a president or leader of the country I must keep my country safe and protected. There were many pros and cons such as starvation or ending of wars. There were huge impacts on both cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
August 6th of 1945 was the day that President Harry S.Truman decided to end the war for good when he ordered the dropping of the first atomic bomb, named “Little Boy”, on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Two days later, President Truman ordered a second dropping of an atomic bomb named “Fat Man” on the city of Nagasaki because Japan did not surrender after the bombing of Hiroshima. The casualties of these atomic bombs were severe with over an estimated 100,000 people dead (“The Atomic Bomb”). The dropping of the bomb should have never happened because it was highly unnecessary, due to the fact that Japan were practically defeated already. According to William D. Leahy, the Chief of Staff to President Franklin Roosevelt and President Harry Truman and a very close aide to both presidents believed that the surrendering of Japan could be arranged without the use of an atomic bomb and invasions on their mainland.
The Dropping of the Atomic Bombs August 6, 1945 and August 9, 1945 were days thought no one believed would happen. Only one country in history has ever used an atomic bomb against another nation, and that nation is the United States of America. The atomic bombs were being used against Japan towards the end of World War II because of the bombing of pearl harbor. The United States was completely justified in dropping the bombs on Japan. Although some do not agree with using the atomic bombs, the bombs were dropped, changing the war along with the rest of the world.
Was the dropping of the Atomic bombs justified? On the 6th of August 1945, the first of two atomic bombs was dropped onto the city of Hiroshima by the US plane Enola Gay. On the 9th of August 1945, three days later, the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cities in Japan.